Sort of a spin off of the paladin-as-lawful-stupid thread, in which the thought occurred to me but it didn't seem to generate any response, whether because it wasn't relevant the discussion or I'm just the only one thinks it significant. Guess I'll find out.
Playing 3.5/PF for the past several years the thought has occurred to me a number times that there really doesn't seem to be a good reason for paladins and clerics to be separate classes. Both essentially fill the same niche of martial agent of divine will, the only real difference being paladins generally focus more on smiting and clerics more on support. Not that there's anything wrong with overlapping roles, of course, I just think the two are generally so similar in virtually every other respect nothing would really be lost if you just axed one, rolled the important bits from it into the other and called it a day.
My question isn't necessarily meant to be specific to 3.5/PF or even D&D in general, though that's undoubtedly where it will have the most relevance. I'm just curious. Is there some important distinction I'm missing or failing to consider, or are they just separated out from each other Because Tradition?
Pretty much both are just popular classes.
I like lots of classes, and so, am happy to have both.
Because someone screwed up. The original OD&D paladin wasn't a martial agent of divine will. They were knights. The flower of chivalry. They have some divine backing, but only because they've sworn to be virtuous as part of their defense of the realm. It has more to do with the divine right of kings than anything else.
So, for example, the OD&D paladin doesn't get cleric spells, and there's no mention of serving a god. The rules specifically mention serving "lawful princes or patriarchs". They can heal others (it specifically says "others") and are immune to disease, have a save bonus, and get to use a holy sword, if they find one.
Basically, if you don't want to play Knights of the Round Table or Charlamagne's paladins, they shouldn't exist in your world.
I always really dug the paladin as a class when I was young, because of all the powers they came with. But when you think about it, I guess some of that stuff (like the clerical spell casting and turning undead and such) are a bit much, and move them too far into the realm of the cleric, whilst dragging the fighter/cavalier stuff along with it. Maybe more cavalier and less cleric is the way to go?
The same reason we have Warlocks, Wizards, and Sorcerers for arcane casters: The designers felt there was enough of a difference between a War Domain Cleric and a Divine Fighter to make them two different classes.
With 5e's Paladin focus on a code of conduct over devotion to a deity, they do seem to be very distinct to me.
Quote from: IggytheBorg;822503I always really dug the paladin as a class when I was young, because of all the powers they came with. But when you think about it, I guess some of that stuff (like the clerical spell casting and turning undead and such) are a bit much, and move them too far into the realm of the cleric, whilst dragging the fighter/cavalier stuff along with it. Maybe more cavalier and less cleric is the way to go?
I hadn't even thought of the cavalier, but that totally makes sense, especially in light of the paladin's origin being rooted in romantic chivalry as talysman noted. I'm actually playing a religious order cavalier in my current campaign and he's effectively a non-magical paladin, which is what really got me thinking about this in the first place.
Quote from: snooggums;822507The same reason we have Warlocks, Wizards, and Sorcerers for arcane casters:
Funny you should mention that; as far as I'm concerned those three are all part of the same one-trick equine family. Not that I think there shouldn't be variability in casters, I just think it should be categorical rather than utilitarian. Instead of catch-all arcane masters who can cast every variety of spell known to man to varying degrees I'd split casters up into disciplines; illusionists, elemental evokers, necromancers, summoners, etc., each of whom specialize in their particular type of magic and don't have much overlap with the others. Basically the way FASA did it with Earthdawn (granted, they also included a wizard discipline, but it was its own distinct thing rather than being a bland "universalist" caster).
Quote from: snooggumsWith 5e's Paladin focus on a code of conduct over devotion to a deity, they do seem to be very distinct to me.
Right. One more reason to make the switch to 5e once our current campaign wraps up.
They actually had a fairly logical explanation for that in the Warcraft universe: The Holy Light was originally more of a pacifist/contemplative religion, but then the Orcs showed up and the flock needed more active defenders and combat forces. Presumably something similar happened with the Draenei, who'd been following the Light much longer. ;)
JG
For me, the distinction lies in role they play within their respective religious or spiritual organizations. Paladins, for all intents and purposes, are the strong arm protectors of the people and are in the trenches while Clerics perform a more subtle role to the masses and royalty alike. Not that doesn't mean clerics don't adventure or that paladins don't take on more non-combative roles, just that the majority of the time one is more about specifics (paladins vs. evil) compared to bringing healing and aid to the people (clerics and their prayers).
See, to my mind the subtle role of support to the masses is what priests are for. There's no reason to put on armor and train to bash in heads if all you're doing is blessing fields and babies or playing religious adviser to the local authority.
Clerics are the deliberate mortal agents of their god's will, here to seek out and smite anything their god thinks needs smiting; be it disease, agents of an opposing deity or priests and clerics of a similar deity from a different culture who are Doing X Wrong. They're the zealots who have given themselves wholly to their faith and who are fully prepared to give all they have and potentially all a bunch of other people have if it means achieving their god's ends. They train for combat and hardship because they fully expect to meet resistance in their efforts, whether by the hands of their god's enemies or simply ignorant people who need to have some divine sense beat into them. They're the leaders of crusades and the engines of social and political change; when a cleric rolls into town anyone who may have cause to fear their god's judgment clenches up or makes himself scarce because Shit is about to Go Down.
That's how I play 'em, anyway, as I find that vastly more fun than being a glorified pocket healer in heavy armor. I don't really like magical healing in RPGs in the first place, honestly, though I'm willing to accept it as a game conceit provided it's not coming from a particular class or skill line which carries with it the expectation that will be the character's primary role in the party.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822552See, to my mind the subtle role of support to the masses is what priests are for. There's no reason to put on armor and train to bash in heads if all you're doing is blessing fields and babies or playing religious adviser to the local authority.
I feel priest and Cleric are synonymous and interchangeable, like the Paladin and Knight are the same. Clerics have to spend a significant time praying and being spellcasters while paladins don't and until 3e Paladin's were kick-ass fighters. 3e sort of shot the class in the foot by amping up how strong Clerics are. 4e made the distinction a lot better by enforcing roles and 5e sort of makes a different distinction with mechanics and roleplay.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822552Clerics are the deliberate mortal agents of their god's will, here to seek out and smite anything their god thinks needs smiting; be it disease, agents of an opposing deity or priests and clerics of a similar deity from a different culture who are Doing X Wrong. They're the zealots who have given themselves wholly to their faith and who are fully prepared to give all they have and potentially all a bunch of other people have if it means achieving their god's ends. They train for combat and hardship because they fully expect to meet resistance in their efforts, whether by the hands of their god's enemies or simply ignorant people who need to have some divine sense beat into them. They're the leaders of crusades and the engines of social and political change; when a cleric rolls into town anyone who may have cause to fear their god's judgment clenches up or makes himself scarce because Shit is about to Go Down.
while I don't disagree I think this is where the game starts to get into the mix. Every class can be distilled down to Weapon-guy, Magic-user, and Gish. To give more options, there's going to be overlap. The druid, for example, is just a nature cleric and the Ranger is just a druid/Fighter gish. Basically the game has expanded and many think to an excess to sell splats.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822552That's how I play 'em, anyway, as I find that vastly more fun than being a glorified pocket healer in heavy armor. I don't really like magical healing in RPGs in the first place, honestly, though I'm willing to accept it as a game conceit provided it's not coming from a particular class or skill line which carries with it the expectation that will be the character's primary role in the party.
fair enough. I prefer many options and mechanics and classes. If I'm going to play a class-based game then they might as well go while hog and make 2 dozen.
Paladins are like Knights Templar - Fighters and Clerics rolled into one.
Sure, you could go with a multi-class PC to achieve a similar thing, but I like the idea of the Paladin being a Holy Knight and having elements of both classes.
Paladins are combat oriented. Clerics are open ended as to what roles they fill.
Interestingly. Of the few paladins I have seen in play. Hardly any have ever actually used the clerical spells they get.
Because they are completely different things.
Paladins are knights in shining armor, knights errant that wander around going questing. Their name is derived from the peers of Charlemagne, essentially his version of the Knights of the Round table. There's a whole series of stories about them called the Matter of France that is every bit as good as the King Arthur stuff.
That's what it got retrofitted to the Cavalier class, because that was meant to be a knight, and then the paladin was the knight in shining armor/do-gooder sort of knight.
Clerics are on the other hand are meant to be religious warriors, like the Knights Hospitaller. They are part of a church hierarchy, and don't really necessary do good things or go about on quests, but do what they are ordered to. While true, in D&D they tend to go wandering about willy nilly, at the same time, they are still definitely part of a church organization.
(If they were like the Knights Templar, then Clerics would basically be bankers)
Somehow Paladin has come to mean religious warrior, but that's because people are ignorant of its origins.
Quote from: Batman;822565fair enough. I prefer many options and mechanics and classes. If I'm going to play a class-based game then they might as well go while hog and make 2 dozen.
Whereas I prefer the skill-based approach of having a lot of variation within classes. Which is, admittedly, the root of a lot of my complaints with the way classes work in D&D and why I prefer Earthdawn instead.
Quote from: Omega;822574Paladins are combat oriented. Clerics are open ended as to what roles they fill.
Interestingly. Of the few paladins I have seen in play. Hardly any have ever actually used the clerical spells they get.
Maybe that's the disconnect; I don't see paladins as combat-oriented, I simply see them as active agents of divine will. They move and shake, grab the world by the horns and, through indomitable force of will, wrestle it into another mixture of metaphors until it's properly doing whatever their god says it should be doing. As opposed to clerics, who often seem to be much more reactive, which has never really made sense to me in the context of being an adventurer.
I think I may just axe clerics from my game and replace them with paladins tweaked lose the alignment requirement. At least in Pathfinder I wouldn't really miss 'em; Paizo's description of the class has always struck me as kinda' milquetoast and, honestly, channel energy as a primary class feature is fucking lame.
I prefer if they would rename the Paladin as Crusader class, to me that's what they are, Crusaders for a Church or religious organization and the Cleric class renamed as Priest class, IMO makes more sense.
Agree with OP. Further, there are only two classes--fighters and spell casting types. Everything else is a sub-class of some kind.
Funny, had the same debate with a former poster a few days ago. I like his take on it: clerics are ordained warrior-priests, paladins are divinely inspired questing knights. Bishop Turpin, Odo of Bayeux, Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights — clerics. Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen — paladins.
HARP.. (High adventure roleplaying) had a paladin as a sub-class of Cleric.
Which made a lot of sense.
I may have this wrong, but I believe Gary had Paladin's originally under St. Cuthbert. If that is correct, to do otherwise may be incorrect :p
Quote from: The Butcher;822758Funny, had the same debate with a former poster a few days ago. I like his take on it: clerics are ordained warrior-priests, paladins are divinely inspired questing knights. Bishop Turpin, Odo of Bayeux, Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights — clerics. Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen — paladins.
Having thought on it a while, I think this distinction works best for me. It doesn't really separate the two mechanically, of course, but at this point I don't know as I can be sure I'm not simply conflating issues with other aspects of D&D I may not entirely like inside my head.
I do think it is dumb to have both. I think you can have Clerics and Knights, or you can have Knights, Paladins, and Monks/priests (monks in the western sense, not the Kung-Fu sense), but Clerics and Paladins were basically both riffs on the same thing.
2e D&D came the closest to a sensibly paring down the D&D class bloat with kits enabling a fighter to be a knight, a gladiator or a barbarian but the drive to sell more books and a touch of fear about rocking the boat put pay to the idea.
The 2e Priest with its variants allowed you to create the pastoral priest who was weak at combat but had spells and powers and the Militant order priest like the Templar or Knight of St John. In this system the Paladin should very much have been retired.
The D&D cleric as a class is basically a band-aid. Envisaged to shut down a Vampire PC and then being used to fill the mechanical flaw of HPs as characters grew to higher levels. The martial cleric from OD&D and 1e can only really be thought of as a militant order monk. There really is no other explanation for their martial prowess compared to the other classes.
In my Platonic idea of D&D Clerics form a broad class from priests to Militant orders with mechanical variation as per 2e. Divine power would come from a piety rating that would move up or down through play based on character actions. A Paladin would be a martial priest, like a Templar, with a high piety. A paladin would loose some or all of those powers as their piety dropped. Not all knights are Galahad some are Lancelot and some are Kay and some are Mordred